>I'm saying that not identifying as a member of the group allows you to make a conscious decision on whether to continue to cooperate with a group when the goals of the group no longer are compatible with your goals. Maybe that means ending or redefining your relationship with the group
But that is still parasitic in the sense that others are, as a consequence of identifying strongly with the group, sacrificing their own personal goals in order to achieve group goals, where you are not.
>This is a particularly rich accusation coming from someone who thinks it's normal to behave out of rational self-interest. ;)
Hah, well I don't mean it as an accusation. I'm not criticizing your position on any kind of moral basis, just on a practical one.
>That's true, which is why you'd want to cooperate with groups and then exit them when they cease to be beneficial.
Sure, but the point is that if the members strongly identify as members of the group, the group will be more effective in the short term.
>To be clear, a lot of your negativity on my position seems to be from your assuming that my goals are necessarily selfish.
Well, it's more that I think your position would not end up working for most people trying to further their own self interest, so it's not rational for them to act that way. I think it is generally rational for people to make membership of certain types of groups a significant part of their self-identity.
>If you believe everyone acts only in rational self-interest
I would not make a claim like that unless "rational self-interest" was defined in such a way as to make that claim tautological and therefore uninteresting.
>The sentence very clearly implies all, and nowhere in the post is an indication that you mean any restriction to part (vs all) of the med/pharm profession
Huh? Not trusting someone is not the same as implying that everything they do is bad.
I am quite surprised by the downvotes here. They almost make me think that people are being paid to create an appearance of a pro-Amazon/pro-Bezos consensus on this site.
That is amazing. How did you get all WP employees to agree to let you leave brain scan machines hooked up to them for the past 7 years?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bezos is handing down fiats. He's an extremely competent executive. That is not the most effective means of getting what you want out of every type of person in every situation. He knows that, and he also knows many alternative ways of influencing behavior.
Do you have some personal insight into the minds of WP employees? Do you have first-hand knowledge that the identity of the owner of the business has had no impact on any of their decisions, like who to hire or what to publish?
Leaders like Bezos don't have to write down a memo to make sure people carry out their will.
The reasons he gives for buying it don't tell us anything. His net worth is in the 12 figures. Everything he says publicly is crafted by a well paid and highly competent PR team.
If he bought it to gain political influence, which seems to me the only reason that makes any sense whatsoever, or for any other reason that would put him in a bad light, he would not in a million years come out and say that openly.
>And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians.
At least from outward appearances, most of the ruling class and permanent government isn't particularly fond of the current President.
>That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member of that group yourself.
You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for group goals, while not sacrificing your own goals for group goals. That sort of behavior is quite destructive to the group, and groups have (of course imperfect) mechanisms to punish people that behave that way. If you can get away with behaving that way, so be it, but the group has a strong incentive to stop you from doing so.
>It's a property of groups that if they believe the group is beneficial, they'll make compromises to maintain the existence of the group. Each compromise takes them farther from their ideals, until they're no longer really serving their original goals. As a result, I would argue that all groups tend toward not really being in the interest of the members, unless careful measures are taken to prevent that.
In the long term, sure I could buy that. But the short term benefits could easily make it worth it overall to form the group. By the time the group degenerates as you describe, the members could be vastly ahead of where they would have been otherwise.
>Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation.
I didn't say or suggest it was.
>if you identify as part of a group, then you will have the human impulse to take actions that achieve the goals of the group, even if those goals are incompatible with your own goals.
Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as members of that group.
Of course, it's certainly possible for groups that aren't really in the interest of the members of the group to form.
I certainly agree that everyone's values are ultimately arbitrary, but that's pretty far outside of this discussion. Most people are self-interested, and the person I originally replied to was talking about normal people. "This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America.
People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams."
>For one thing, being in the U.S. healthcare system, if I did have the markers, would that then count as a "pre-existing condition" I'd have to disclose?
I'm sure the people who pay premiums for health insurance would hope so. If you already know you have a condition that's going to cost a lot of money to treat, you're not looking for insurance. If you can't pay for it yourself, you're looking for charity.
He suggests keeping your identity small. There is only so much you can do on that front. Some potential government policies are beneficial for people with certain characteristics, including immutable ones or ones that are difficult to change, and harmful for other people. Why would it not be rational for people to align politically along the lines of those characteristics to push for policies that benefit them on that basis, especially if they believe people who don't have those characteristics are aligning to push against them?
But that is still parasitic in the sense that others are, as a consequence of identifying strongly with the group, sacrificing their own personal goals in order to achieve group goals, where you are not.
>This is a particularly rich accusation coming from someone who thinks it's normal to behave out of rational self-interest. ;)
Hah, well I don't mean it as an accusation. I'm not criticizing your position on any kind of moral basis, just on a practical one.
>That's true, which is why you'd want to cooperate with groups and then exit them when they cease to be beneficial.
Sure, but the point is that if the members strongly identify as members of the group, the group will be more effective in the short term.
>To be clear, a lot of your negativity on my position seems to be from your assuming that my goals are necessarily selfish.
Well, it's more that I think your position would not end up working for most people trying to further their own self interest, so it's not rational for them to act that way. I think it is generally rational for people to make membership of certain types of groups a significant part of their self-identity.
>If you believe everyone acts only in rational self-interest
I would not make a claim like that unless "rational self-interest" was defined in such a way as to make that claim tautological and therefore uninteresting.